What if I told you the acts Harvey Weinstein is accused of are acceptable under the liberal agenda? Liberal socialist democrats exploit certain groups to promote an agenda. Their favorite group to exploit are children, especially dead children. Their next favorite group to exploit are minorities. Children and minorities are favorite targets of predators and liberals alike.
If liberals exploit children and minorities to promote their agenda, what is wrong with someone using their power and influence to get what they want? According to the liberal philosophy of tolerance, there should be nothing wrong with it.
The difference between children and adults, adults can speak up, while dead children can not, and minorities usually remain silent.
One of the targets (no pun intended) of liberal socialist democrats are dead children left in the wake of mass shootings.
Everything from the Sandy Hook shooting to the Sutherland Springs Church shooting, socialist democrats used the still warm bodies of dead children as a tool to promote a gun control agenda.
One popular gun control phrase is, “If it saves one life, then it is worth it.”
If liberal democrats truly wanted to save lives, then they should address abortion.
The most disturbing part of the liberal agenda is the slaughter of unborn children. If socialist democrats truly wanted to save lives, then start by protecting the most innocent and defenseless.
How can liberal democrats be upset by what Harvey Weinstein is accused of doing, when tens of thousands of unborn children are slaughtered?
Which is more appalling,
- someone in power using their influence to obtain sexual favors from adults or
- the murder of unborn children?
Anyone with a sense of morality should say the unborn child is the real victim.
The nation is morally bankrupt. We live in a culture where divorce is acceptable, cheating is normal, and the lust for money is put above all else.
Society taunts abortion as a woman’s choice. But when an adult uses a position of authority to obtain sexual favors from other adults, that is somehow abhorrent.
The unborn child has no say in its own death, while the adult has a choice of whether to provide sexual favors, or not to provide.
Children are allowed to pick their “gender”, when they can not even pass a history test. The child has no working knowledge of the real world, yet is allowed to pretend they are something they are not. Gender is based on science, just like climate change.
We live in a world where the internet is more important than life. People are outraged internet neutrality rules were rolled back. Yet, where was the outrage when the obama administration killed a US citizen without due process?
How Can Society…
Use the dead bodies of children to promote an agenda
Accept divorce as normal
Accepting cheating as normal
Accept the mental illness of transgenderism as normal
Sanctuary states for illegal immigrants
Sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants
Accept degenerate lifestyles as normal
Women have children by several different men
Men father children by several different women
Families spend generations on welfare
Allow Wall Street criminals to walk free (financial crash of 2008)
But for some reason people are upset when Harvey Weinstein, and others, are accused of sexual harassment
In order to be upset with Harvey Weinstein, society must first reject all forms of immorality?
As for Harvey Weinstein, I do not care one way or the other. The women who accused him of sexual harassment had a choice, and they made their choice.
How can liberals be upset with Harvey, yet believe abortion is ok?
Latest posts by Kevin Felts (see all)
- Survival Gear Additions January 2019 - February 3, 2019
- Would Free Education Solve The Nations Problems? - January 30, 2019
- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is The Result of a Root Problem - November 25, 2018
- Hunting in Seasonally Blocked River Sloughs - November 25, 2018
- What Do The 2018 Midterm Election Results Mean? - November 11, 2018